The Captain Of Security Operations At MCC And His OIG Deposition (Part 1) (5/27/26)

Leon Black Responds To The New York Times

Leon Black has repeatedly tried to narrow and sanitize his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein by describing it as a regrettable but strictly professional arrangement centered on tax planning, estate matters and financial advice. After the scale of the relationship became public, Black called his decision to work with Epstein a “horrible mistake” and portrayed himself as someone who had been deceived by a sophisticated manipulator. He has denied knowing about Epstein’s continuing abuse, denied paying for access to women and insisted that the enormous sums transferred to Epstein were compensation for legitimate services. That framing has allowed Black to acknowledge the relationship without fully embracing what made it so disturbing: he continued employing and paying Epstein for years after Epstein had already been convicted of soliciting a minor. The problem for Black is that each new disclosure has made the relationship appear broader, more expensive and more complicated than his carefully limited description suggests. Investigators have examined payments totaling at least $158 million, with Senate investigators later saying the financial transfers may have reached roughly $170 million, while Black also paid $62.5 million to settle potential claims brought by the U.S. Virgin Islands without admitting wrongdoing. When congressional investigators pressed him about nondisclosure agreements and payments involving women connected to Epstein, lawmakers accused him of refusing to cooperate and issued subpoenas demanding documents and further testimony. Black has consistently denied criminal conduct, but his public strategy has remained largely the same: concede poor judgment, blame Epstein for deceiving him and characterize the relationship as technical financial work, even as the expanding record has made that explanation increasingly difficult to separate from the wider machinery surrounding Epstein. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein Refuses To Answer Questions About Prince Andrew During A Deposition

During a 2016 deposition connected to Virginia Giuffre’s defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when attorneys questioned him about his sexual conduct and relationships with powerful associates. When the questioning turned to Prince Andrew, Epstein refused to provide substantive answers, relying on the Fifth rather than confirming or denying details about Andrew’s visits, his interactions with Giuffre, or Epstein’s alleged role in arranging sexual encounters. His refusal came amid Giuffre’s allegations that Epstein and Maxwell trafficked her to the prince on multiple occasions, claims Andrew consistently denied before settling Giuffre’s civil lawsuit in 2022 without admitting liability. Invoking the Fifth was not legally an admission that Epstein’s allegations involving Andrew were true, but it allowed him to avoid testimony that might expose him to additional criminal liability or contradict the accounts he and his associates had presented. Epstein used the privilege broadly throughout the deposition, declining to answer numerous questions about abuse, trafficking and the people within his circle. In practical terms, his silence ensured that one of the central figures in the scandal never gave a sworn explanation of what Prince Andrew knew, why he spent time at Epstein’s properties or whether Epstein facilitated the encounters described by Giuffre. The deposition therefore became another example of Epstein using legal protections to prevent direct scrutiny of the relationships at the heart of his trafficking network. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Ghislaine Maxwell and The Transfer From New Hampshire To New York After Her Arrest

After her arrest at a secluded estate in Bradford, New Hampshire, on July 2, 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell was initially held in federal custody while authorities prepared to bring her to the jurisdiction where she had been charged. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan accused Maxwell of helping Jeffrey Epstein recruit, groom and sexually abuse underage girls, including one victim who was only 14 years old. Within days of her arrest, she was transferred from New Hampshire to New York so she could appear before the federal court handling the case. The move placed Maxwell under the authority of the Southern District of New York, the same federal office that had prosecuted Epstein before his death in 2019. Once in New York, Maxwell was detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn while awaiting arraignment and a decision on bail. Prosecutors argued that her international citizenship, substantial financial resources, hidden finances and ability to remain out of public view made her an extreme flight risk. Maxwell pleaded not guilty and sought release under a multimillion-dollar bail package, but the court ordered her to remain in custody. Her transfer from the relative isolation of New Hampshire to a heavily secured federal detention facility in New York marked the beginning of the prolonged pretrial proceedings that eventually led to her conviction on sex-trafficking-related charges. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Family Wealth, Public Defenders and the Cost of the Tyler Robinson Trial (7/19/26)

Tyler Robinson’s father, Matthew Robinson, has continued operating the family’s successful stone and marble business in St. George, Utah, while his son awaits trial for the alleged murder of Charlie Kirk. The company reportedly relies on word-of-mouth advertising and longstanding relationships with local contractors, many of whom have continued doing business with the family despite the criminal case. Court records show that Matthew previously faced a lawsuit from his brother and former business partner, Clint Robinson, who accused him of misappropriating roughly $100,000, concealing financial records and exchanging company work for personal favors. The brothers eventually resolved the dispute through a confidential settlement, and Matthew has declined to publicly discuss either the old allegations or his son’s case. Although Robinson comes from a family that appears financially comfortable, a judge declared the 23-year-old indigent, meaning Utah taxpayers are funding his capital-murder defense. His attorneys have reportedly requested an additional $2 million for experts and trial preparation, while legal analysts estimate the total cost could eventually exceed $10 million once a lengthy trial and possible appeals are included. Prosecutors presented testimony at the preliminary hearing alleging that Robinson confessed several times to his partner, Lance Twiggs, before surrendering with the assistance of his father and a family friend who had worked in law enforcement. The case has also placed intense scrutiny on Robinson’s hometown, where former teachers and residents have expressed shock over the allegations and frustration with the continuing national attention. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Alan Dershowitz Backs Out of Epstein Congressional Interview (7/19/26)

Alan Dershowitz has spent years presenting himself as a fearless defender of due process, loudly attacking Epstein survivors, journalists, and critics while insisting that he was eager to tell Congress his side of the story. Yet when the opportunity reportedly arrived for a transcribed interview about his role on Jeffrey Epstein’s legal team, the Florida non-prosecution agreement, and his public claims, he backed out. The contrast is especially striking given the energy he devoted to the Martha’s Vineyard pierogi incident, where he confronted a vendor, recorded the dispute, threatened legal action, and returned again to make his point. He seemed ready to wage constitutional war over a denied dumpling, but when congressional investigators wanted answers about Epstein, his appetite for confrontation suddenly disappeared. Dershowitz has never been convicted of participating in Epstein’s sexual crimes, and he denies the allegations against him, but his role in helping Epstein secure the extraordinary Florida deal remains a legitimate subject of scrutiny. That agreement protected Epstein from federal prosecution, extended protection to potential co-conspirators, and was negotiated without properly informing the victims. Dershowitz may call his involvement zealous advocacy, but that does not erase the moral consequences of a process that favored wealth, power, and elite access over survivors. His last-minute withdrawal exposes the hypocrisy of a man who demands scrutiny for everyone else while avoiding it himself, proving once again that he is most courageous when he controls the microphone and far less impressive when someone else controls the questions. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com